i still think the Raiders of a few years back was one of the worst teams of all time.

Better than the bears:

 

indy (playoff indy)

San Diego

Pats (tie IMO)

 

I think Baltimore was better too, despite their showing against the Colts. That defense was nasty, and I still think they beat the Colts if they don't panic and abandon the run (Lewis had like 95 yards, but only 18 carries IIRC).

And that's why they play the games. Teams didn't want to play the Ravens...the lost. San Diego was a lock for the SB...they lost. The nation was pulling for the Saints...they lost. Bears couldn't beat the Seahawks twice...Seahawks lost.

 

The Bears weren't close to the best team to ever make the Super Bowl, but they certainly weren't close to the worst team.

 

And, if the Bears resign Briggs and either resign Ruben Brown or sign Steinbach, they have a great chance to be back. The Colts, I believe will rest on their laurels, the defense will regress and except for Harrison and Manning, will have an average year next year.

The Bears lost by 12 against a heavily-favored Colts team. Our QB was responsible for 4 turnovers by himself. Nobody can tell me that we couldn't have won that game. I hear people saying we had no chance from the beginning, but that's hot garbage. If our QB doesn't give the ball to the defense FOUR f***ing times, we probably win that game.

 

EDIT: Sorry, he was responsible for 3 turnovers. We recovered the one fumble. But fumbling 2 snaps in one game is laughably terrible.

Edited February 12, 200719 yr by Milkman delivers

It doesnt matter, everyone knows that team is the worst Super Bowl team by far.

 

I really cant even think of 1 good player on that team.

 

Atleast the Broncos who got smoked by the Niners had Elway, and the Bills had a few HOF's when they got killed by the Boys.

 

ALthough Denver did take 2 beatings if you count the Redksins too.

The Chargers had a terrible super bowl team that one year they got in and took the biggest beating ever from the Niners. I'd like to say 94 but I may be wrong.

 

The Bears lost by 12 against a heavily-favored Colts team. Our QB was responsible for 4 turnovers by himself. Nobody can tell me that we couldn't have won that game. I hear people saying we had no chance from the beginning, but that's hot garbage. If our QB doesn't give the ball to the defense FOUR f***ing times, we probably win that game.

 

EDIT: Sorry, he was responsible for 3 turnovers. We recovered the one fumble. But fumbling 2 snaps in one game is laughably terrible.

That bulls***, in the beginning of the game the Bears had the opportunity to turn that game into a potential route. We had the early TD, a stupid ass coverage mistake and a couple horrific turnovers (The Rex & Gilmore fumbles were pathetic) while the Benson fumble I give the Colts credit for.

 

Early in that game the Bears had a few chances to give themsleves a very good size lead and at that point we'd have been able to start controlling the situation and would have put Peyton into a much more pass happy offense which is exactly what I would have wanted.

 

The Bears instead failed upon those opportunites (the early fumbles we had forced) by just making absolutely awful turnovers (Grossman & Gilmore's early on).

That game was 49-26.

 

A little closer than some of the thrashings received by the Pats, Broncos, and Bills.

 

(Pats game was 36 point difference, Broncos-49ers was 45, Broncos-Skins was 32, Bills-Boys was 35)

 

Once you get over the 30 point hump you knnow you are talking about a bad game.

With Manning's playoff mediocrity this season, the Bears could have made it an even closer game if they could have held onto the ball and not made poor passing decisions.

The Chargers had a terrible super bowl team that one year they got in and took the biggest beating ever from the Niners. I'd like to say 94 but I may be wrong.

That bulls***, in the beginning of the game the Bears had the opportunity to turn that game into a potential route. We had the early TD, a stupid ass coverage mistake and a couple horrific turnovers (The Rex & Gilmore fumbles were pathetic) while the Benson fumble I give the Colts credit for.

 

Early in that game the Bears had a few chances to give themsleves a very good size lead and at that point we'd have been able to start controlling the situation and would have put Peyton into a much more pass happy offense which is exactly what I would have wanted.

 

The Bears instead failed upon those opportunites (the early fumbles we had forced) by just making absolutely awful turnovers (Grossman & Gilmore's early on).

 

I'm sorry, but nobody will ever convince me that that game is anything less than 80% Grossman's fault. Solely responsible for 3 turnovers is insane.

It was clearly 95% the OC's fault.

 

I doubt Rex called for Benson to come in the game and fumble, which I believe was the most crucial moment in the game.

It was clearly 95% the OC's fault.

 

I doubt Rex called for Benson to come in the game and fumble, which I believe was the most crucial moment in the game.

 

And I doubt the OC called for Grossman to fumble two snaps and also throw two INT's, but he did.

Don't forget that he fell down twice, too.

I can't believe those counted as sacks!

there were alot of people at fault. the O line and d line were both terrible. The safeties were atrocious. The TD to Wayne was ridiculous.

 

Even still we were in it to the end.

OC called the plays that were int's including one which was a timing pass that came directly from the booth.

 

As to the fumbled snaps, who knows the reason for that. Its not like Rex fumbled a ton of snaps this year, so whatever the reason, be it Kreutz or Rex, it was just a fluke.

 

If the Bears dont fumble the ball with Benson, the whole game plan is entirely different.

 

Thats my opinion.

Don't forget that he fell down twice, too.

I can't believe those counted as sacks!

He fell down trying to get away from McFarland who was in the backfield about 1 second after the snap and about to clobber him anyway. The other time he fell down it was on one of the botched snaps. I love how you make it seem like he just fell during a routine handoff or something.

He fell down trying to get away from McFarland who was in the backfield about 1 second after the snap and about to clobber him anyway. The other time he fell down it was on one of the botched snaps. I love how you make it seem like he just fell during a routine handoff or something.

O-line was terrible. Olin has some trouble with the bigger DT's ive noticed.

Bears o-line had difficulty pass blocking all year when they were in forced passing situations.

 

That is why it was so imperative to get the running game going so that they could throw on downs that were not necessarily passing downs.

 

I cant help but think that Olin was trying to get those snaps out a little quicker causing some problems.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The O had most to do with the loss, end of story.

 

Especially considering the field position that was given to them on every play due to Hester being such a threat on kickoffs.

Especially considering the field position that was given to them on every play due to Hester being such a threat on kickoffs.

Hester didnt really get the ball much all game.

He fell down trying to get away from McFarland who was in the backfield about 1 second after the snap and about to clobber him anyway. The other time he fell down it was on one of the botched snaps. I love how you make it seem like he just fell during a routine handoff or something.

 

There's absolutely no reason for him to be falling over himself.

 

Its not like Rex fumbled a ton of snaps this year, so whatever the reason, be it Kreutz or Rex, it was just a fluke.

 

Two flukes, right?

I remember Grossman dropping snaps a couple of times throughout the year. I can remember a few times he tripped over himself.

 

He's short and slow. He's fundamentally unsound.

I dont think ive ever heard Grossman called:

 

"Fundamentally unsound"

 

It seems like your saying by being short and slow hes "fundamentally unsound" but that would be the exact opposite of fundamentals.

 

If you look at the tape I dont think youll see any fundamental problem with the snap.

 

He didnt back out to early, he didnt flinch, etc.

 

So what exact fundamental is unsound?

 

The growing fundamental?

Edited February 12, 200719 yr by Soxbadger

He needs gloves that can help him grip the ball better.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hester didnt really get the ball much all game.

 

Exactly my point. After the opening kick off, the Colts gameplan was to avoid him like the plague. Yes, the Bears fumbled once, but all the other kick offs gave them field position at or around the 40 yard line which really put pressure on the Colts defense.

Exactly my point. After the opening kick off, the Colts gameplan was to avoid him like the plague. Yes, the Bears fumbled once, but all the other kick offs gave them field position at or around the 40 yard line which really put pressure on the Colts defense.

 

 

and hence more pressure on Grossman.

And since Benson pulled one of those:

 

"I f***ed up so im gonna pretend im injured"

 

The bears went away from the game plan of pounding the ball.

 

Which put even more pressure on Grossman.

Grossman is fundamentally unsound because of his mechanics.

If your unspecific enough you can always just hope to piggy back on some one elses argument.